The Rest of College Football

[WM Wolverine]

About what I was going to say talent. A 'soft' hit from an NFL defender is a 'hard' hit in CFB, your QB is going to get hit a ton. I think his run game would work if he had the right QB. There is more inside 'power' to his running game than most think.

[Tony G]

Size and speed are greater. The likelihood of getting lit up on a tackle or hit are much greater

[Mike]

Yep. RGIII couldn't make through one season healthy and he's a genetic freak.

[Tony G]

So the demise of Cam Newton's knees is only a matter of time?

[iam416]

RG3's knee was largely happenstance.

The greater concern is getting your QB broke in two.

It's a grown ass man league with really fast, really strong giants with no fear and no regard for their own self-being.

I think all of Kelly's stuff would work. I just don't think you could find a QB that could endure more than 2-3 seasons of it. And you can't go out and recruit another guy.

The other thing is that you need a QB who can pass. Pat White couldn't run that offense in the NFL. If an NFL defense can cheat to the run, you can't run the ball. That's why RG3 is so good and even why Cam is a threat.

[Wild Hoss]

History has proven time and again that the "Hurry Up" mode of operation isn't a long-term winner in the NFL. That, plus a talent advantage that he won't have in the NFL, is what sets his offense apart. They don't really do all that much, and nothing that is particularlly unique.

Frankly, I think you can see it at play in his bowl games. Given time to be prepared for, he's scored 17, 19, 45 and 28 in his four bowls. 45 was scored a Big Ten team (Wisconsin) of course, and was not substantially more than they'd given up in several games during the year. NFL teams would be that well-prepared every week.

[iam416]

I read his "coaching philosophy" thingy. Nothing particularly ingenious, but one assumption stood out -- when the defense plays two safeties back, we are 6v6 in the box and we think if we get a hat on a hat we can run the ball.

In the games where his offense has been shut down, his O-line couldn't handle the D-line. Ohio State's DL destroyed them. Then Fairly and his merry band of parollees bloodied them. Stanford, this season, did the same thing.

In the NFL there's none of this "hat on hat" bulllshit. That's good for a sliver of crease which a really good RB can get through before a LB cleans up a 5-6 yard gain. That's if you're lucky. The NFL DL is a massively different animal from the dregs of the P12.

[iam416]

The other thing about the NFL, of course, is that all the guys in the back-7 can run. Getting a LB or SS in space in the NFL doesn't do you nearly as much good as it does in CFB.

[Da Geezer]

I don't think Chip Kelly's ofense would have held up in the NFL either: 53 on a roster, need for a passer, quick and massive defenders. All said above.

But does it seem to you that the Seahawks play at a slightly faster clip than their opponents? It does to me. And they have the quarterback to do it in White. How many NFL games have you watched when the offensive team has the ball in the two minute drill and moves the ball right down the field, even when the defense is playing it straight? I find myself saying, darn, why can't they do that all the time. I think Carroll's success will lead to bursts of quick tempo in NFL football.

[Hannibal]

I've heard a lot of reasons why this offense or that offense wouldn't work in the NFL, but I have yet to hear one that doesn't also apply to a conventional style of offense. QBs taking hits? Applies for all of them. The most damaging hits probably come when a guy is throwing a pass anyways, not getting tackled during a run.

One thing that I have noticed in college is that when a great defense get shredded, it is usually a spread offense that does it. There is no data or anecdotal evidence to support the assertion that spread offense are disproportionately reliant on inferior opposing athletes to make it work. If anything, I think that there is an overwhelming body of evidence to suggest the exact opposite.

[Wild Hoss]

The other thing about the NFL, of course, is that all the guys in the back-7 can run. Getting a LB or SS in space in the NFL doesn't do you nearly as much good as it does in CFB.

Not only can they run...they tackle. You almost never see guys get away from the 2nd and 3rd defender in the NFL like you do in every single game college. Most of the time the first guy there brings the ballcarrier down, unless there is that one in a million athlete like Peterson or Vick.

The whole "athletes in space" premise doesn?t fly in the NFL for this reason, and that is why teams employ an army of highly-paid coordinators and support staff to jimmie-up intricate passing plays to score. You don?t win by throwing 5-yard passes then depend on your wideouts to get another 10+ on their own. You have to scheme openings/windows in the defense, and even then they are minuscule.

There have been scads of great mobile quarterbacks come out of college since the 1980s, and only a handful have ever had any real impact. None have "changed the game" as is often predicted. Its still the Bradys and Mannings who bring home the hardware.

[entropy]

I think what Washington did this year, we'll see more of in the future. Not option football, but a few QB run plays and letting the athletic QB have some run/pass options. I think it will provide a few wrinkles, but not turn the QB into a RB. Call it a change up. You see that with some wildcat plays too. a few plays to add wrinkles.

As for the last 2 mins... I think that is mostly on the D. IMO, the NFL is a very conservative league. I sometimes joke that you play for FG's... I do wonder how a hurry up offense would work... or at least up tempo. I would think you could gas a D. Then again, it seems the league has so many specialist on O, not sure it would work with most offenses.

[Hannibal]

There have been lots of running QBs to come out of college football in our lifetime, but they have, without fail, always been forced into "stay in the pocket" systems, and coaches have always coached them to not run.

[Wild Hoss]

I think what Washington did this year, we'll see more of in the future. Not option football, but a few QB run plays and letting the athletic QB have some run/pass options. I think it will provide a few wrinkles, but not turn the QB into a RB.

As for the last 2 mins... I think that is mostly on the D. IMO, the NFL is a very conservative league. I sometimes joke that you play for FG's... I do wonder how a hurry up offense would work... or at least up tempo. I would think you could gas a D. Then again, it seems the league has so many specialist on O, not sure it would work with most offenses.

Its been done. Glanville's Run-N-Shoot. The Jim Kelley Buffalo Bills. The Curt Warner Rams. All had great success for short periods...and all are extinct as offensive philosophies.

Running plays quickly cuts both ways; it prevents defensive substitutions, but it also prevents offensive substitutions. Its also puts a lot of pressure on the offense to be successful on a high number of its plays, or its off the field quickly. This, and the stress of operating quickly, cuts down on the playbook. Less personnel diversity, fewer plays.

[Wild Hoss]

There have been lots of running QBs to come out of college football in our lifetime, but they have, without fail, always been forced into "stay in the pocket" systems, and coaches have always coached them to not run.

I don't know...Vick ran a lot early in his career when he was in Atlanta. Missed a lot of games too, and never ran them into the Super Bowl.